BORING V. DEEP SINKING.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 385, 26 August 1874, Page 3

BORING V. DEEP SINKING.

A writer on the above subject in the " Bendigo Advertiser " says :—lt: — It does seem strange that on the great question of deep prospecting, the idea of boring for the reefs has been so much neglected. I think a great many will bear me out when I say had they commenced boring six or seven years ago, instead of deep sinking and long cross-cutting, Bendigo would have been much better than it is at present. Existing reefs would have been proven at one-tenth the expense, and, if not payable, the rush of miners here would have been less, and consequently not so much misery to-day. By boring from the snrfrce, the cost of cros3-cuts is nearly abolished, because a company can then sink right down on to the reef, or a=; near as practicable, or in the lowest levels of any of our deep mines where quartz has not been found. Surely a few boreholes, say one every 20 feet of the crosscut, if nothing be found sooner, would quickly prove the value of the ground down to 1,000 feet at least. A boring apparatus and fixings may be put in working order for a very small sum indeed, as compared with the sinking material required for proving the same amount of ground. In the coalfields of Great Britain I have known three or four holes bored down a distance over 600 feet simply to prove the best position for sinking, that the same may be in the lowest part of the coal bed, making the transit of coal to the *shaft cheap and easy ; also proving " faults " " thickness,' and quality of tho coal seam. Then why not prove to ns the existence and underlie of quartz reefs ? I expect many will differ from these views in different forms ; the working miners may dread this as an encroachment on their sphere of labor ; but, sir, I think if the miners do suffer for a few months from it they will be benefited by it on the whole, and we had better have this system of prospecting thoroughly and quickly than the present, when contracting miners are prospecting at a rate of wages something like £1 per week, and even less, and at a rate of sinking and driving which will take a very great many years indeed to prove the same* distance down as may be proven and eagerly sought for in twelve months by the simple, cheap, and safe plan of boring. The mode I think the best would be to bore from one to six holes in a direct line crossing the lode on each line of reef that has not been prospected to termination. Let the holes be 50 feet apart, or less, as *' borings" may indicate in the 6rst holes. In conclusion I hope this subject will be taken up by some as a question of great importance, as a deep prospecting shaft seems not only impracticable, but slow and very expensive.